ABSTRACT
History has shown that unless influential governments identified significant security, economic, or domestic political benefits in action, they, more often than not, avoided getting involved in attempting to halt the killing. In certain cases, they were even prone to not supporting international responses to the atrocities. Protesting government policies requires much more effort; and since life has already burdened people with an overload of responsibilities, many citizens may elect not to use their energies on man-made, low priority humanitarian crises. Analyses of donation decisions can offer but rough approximation of reactions to mass atrocities. Their main value is in identifying potential indicators for further research. Certain sensitivities are distinct to views on "terrorism", particularly in the West. Ethical considerations are said to have stronger effects on private citizens not constrained by competing political priorities and responsibilities as government officials are.
